[futrethink]

---Ths is simply to clarify what I might have put in a confusing manner: To find the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?” and when the answer comes up as, “No, there is not” or "Yes, this is all there is", to help find the answer to the question, “Okay, now what?”

[JAK]

Hi futrethink,

First, sorry for the delay – lots of pressing work issues. I will be more available in about a week.

Next, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe post #14 (#54502) is below

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Introduction to M-theory It did this by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane which is vibrating in 11-dimensional space. M-theory This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (The underlines are mine.)

Even here with M-theory, you have at least one dimension. And my laws of difference apply even with no dimensions (an imaginary point), so 1 dimension falls in place, too.

Further, even though the math has been popular for 2 decades, there appears to be a serious flaw in relating M-theory to “reality”. This is from your same Wiki source:
“Unfortunately, until we can find a way to mechanically observe higher dimensions (impossible with our current level of technology) M-Theory has a very difficult time making predictions which can be tested in a laboratory. Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be "proven."

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Hypothetical, true. But if you have a starting point of a “0” (something that is, isn’t, is both and nothing.), you have to go somewhere and if, like Pi, you have no end, that gives you more than just 1, 2, 3 or 4, doesn’t it?

Zero represents nothingness or “not”. To declare it implies a set with “something”. For example, 100 means 1 in the “hundreds column”, nothing in the “tens column”, and nothing in the “single digits column”. And our perception is critical. If you read from right to left, the number becomes 001 which is significantly different.

Also, to say that zero is “something that is, isn’t, is both and nothing”, the complexity of thought increases greatly. Each piece of the complexity can be separated and defined. With definition, “not” is used to separate the sets. For example, “‘0’ is” belongs to the superset of everything which has no bounds. It also belongs to various subsets: things which look like a circle, things which are curved, mathematical symbols, etc. Meanwhile, “‘0’ isn’t” belongs to the subset of things which are “not” as are “void”, and “the null set”, and “nil”, and “nada”. Further, it is part of the subset called English language, and the subset of contractions, and the subset of words starting with vowels, etc.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---And, I have already mentioned; just because, you can only see the one side of ‘what is’, doesn’t eliminate the ‘what it’s not’ from existence, just from a perception.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---True. Dynamic in what perception? We can physically perceive only two dimensions and mentally construct a third dimension, but that doesn’t stop a temporal fourth from existing. Is it really that much of a stretch, to perceive a world that can only physically see/perceive one dimension, mentally construct a second dimension and have a temporal dimension as the third? It is still dynamic, isn’t it?

Being dynamic means exhibiting change. Any dimension showing change is dynamic. Whether a single dimension could exhibit “life” depends upon your definition of life. If a vibrating string is sufficient for your definition of life, then the whole universe is alive based upon vibrating strings. If my definition of life requires climbing toward negative entropy, as Schrödinger claimed, then 1 dimension is likely insufficient for having the attribute of life.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Actually, from reading Mohan. C's post above, I can see how it might be impossible to figure it out, from our understandings/beliefs of one dimensional concepts. ---A singularity or a “0”. Something that can only perceive itself, has nothing else to perceive around it and has nothing else to perceive its existence; it is perceived, it isn’t perceived, it is both and nothing (it doesn’t exist, because it only believes it can perceive itself and a belief is an objectively nonexistent future probability).

As soon as you use the word “perceive”, you eliminate simplicity. You are flirting with Maxwell’s Demon which is an oxymoron – intelligent action without intelligence.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---How does it perceive that it has changing/a different time outside of what it believes? ---This ‘nonexistent linear perception’ concept, involves understanding how time is; past (what was and always has been), present (what is, being created from the mergence of what was and what might be, but doesn’t actually exist, yet) and future (a possibility, that has no subjective existence, except as a belief and no objective existence to a singular(ity) being that does and doesn’t perceive {think of a person in a coma, a deep/black sleep or a trance} and has no thoughts of time or space.) ---Circular time is often shown as a ball. Shove a rod (linear time) from one outside point to another outside point, but don’t go past the finite edges of the exterior of that ball. Hypothetically, mathematically or within a computer model, you can draw an infinite line past the point of the edges of that ball, from each end of that rod, but that finite ball doesn’t exist on that hypothetical line. ---We can think/believe/guess/hypothesize of a future past the point of the edges of circular time, but that will not make that line an objective reality/existent/real thing, because it will not exist outside the ending point and never has existed before the starting point. ---True. They exist as long as an actively perceiving brain and mind exists. A brain and mind that is actively involving perceptions/concepts and inactively involving perceptions/concepts, at the same time, would be the exception, within existence. The different/is and is not perceptions and concepts still exist, but they aren’t being perceived as different, in any way shape or form, by themselves or others; they just are. So, they are, in a way, no different from any other thing and no differences exist. ---True, but you first have to have a perception of the concepts that the symbols of ‘exception’ and ‘not’ describe, otherwise, your ‘law’ doesn’t even exist and becomes the exception to the rule. ---No perception=no differences.

Futrethink, we need to simplify our dialog. My responses grow as do yours. Further, as the dialog grows, multiple issues come into play. Now we are at M-theory, 1-dimensional perception, circular time, and a brain/mind that appears simultaneously active and inactive. We are beginning to “boil the ocean”, and it becomes difficult to respond. I followed your link to your other forum entry as well as the responses, and responding to any or all of it appears straight-forward to me. Answers and clarity exists for any or all parts of the discussion over there. However, it posed itself as another “ocean to boil”.

It is important that we focus on only one aspect at a time. Otherwise, this becomes unwieldy and unmanageable.

Please select one salient issue from either this thread or your other forum. With that, we can become productive in our pursuit of knowledge.

Thanks!

-JAK

[futrethink]

JAK.

Next, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe post #14 (#54502) is below

---I only brought up post # 14, to point out that you had not answered the contradiction to your 3 laws: No perception=no differences. It was not to continue any discussion, on the other points brought up in that post.

Please select one salient issue from either this thread or your other forum. With that, we can become productive in our pursuit of knowledge.

--- No perception=no differences. Without any perception, there is absolutely no proof that there are any differences.
---You can ignore/not answer the following, if multilinear discussion is confusing to you, as you have already seemed to point out.

Even here with M-theory, you have at least one dimension. And my laws of difference apply even with no dimensions (an imaginary point), so 1 dimension falls in place, too.

---My bringing up of M-theory was to show only that there was more hypothesized, than the 6 that you mentioned.

If my definition of life requires climbing toward negative entropy, as Schrödinger claimed, then 1 dimension is likely insufficient for having the attribute of life.

---And it was believed that, ‘if man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings.”
---Individuals learn as time passes from the future through the present to the past that; what was impossible, might be possible, is possible and has been proven possible. Within an infinite reality, what makes you so sure there are limits?
---And yes, I know that there is no proof that reality is infinite, it is only a hypothesis. The information/facts/generalities, that I know of, have yet to be proven wrong and won't be, because the contradicting evidence is nonexistent/ence.

You are flirting with Maxwell’s Demon which is an oxymoron – intelligent action without intelligence.

---When you drive a car, that you have been driving for all your life, along the same route, with the same happenings occurring all the time, is the driving a conscious action or an intelligent action without intelligence and/or learned instinct?
---When an artist, a writer or an athlete is ‘being the art, a part of the pen or in the zone’ are they doing intelligent action or are they just, doing an intelligent action without intelligence/in the flow? You might want to check into research, into such things and get back to me about how such an oxymoron/paradox could be. This is not to mean that I need a link to the medical research.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Mohan.C. ---Who or what does the recording? Isn’t the idea recorded on the level of the interactions of the atoms used in the mind that conceived/remembered the concept? ---I am not going to take this discussion any further on this point or any others of my previous post, as this is not my thread and I will not hi-jack it from JAK. ---I have had this general type of discussion many times on paradoxes and the result of it will be us agreeing to disagree. You have a belief in the truth of science, of hard material evidence and of binary logic. I accept what is and what isn’t a part of reality, as objectively as possible. ---http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=182562&page=19 is a discussion of “Nonexistence exists.” and it will somewhat include many, if not all of my arguments that I would be ending up bringing to a continuing discussion of what has transpired on this JAK’s thread. My first post is # 458.

Actually that is exactly what I said, it is not lost as long as it is remembered.....

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by futrethink Mohan.C. ---I am continuing this with JAK’s permission and only for this reason. ---I never stated that there was anything outside of reality. My exact words were, taken from a part of the sentence,” There is nothing outside of reality.” ---True. ---Really? And the proof that the idea existed, is only recorded by the passage of knowledge through human material and matter? ---If an idea of a tree falling in the forest, is only known by one human and lost, does that mean that a concept of a tree falling in a forest, on a planet with forests unseen by all the other humans, is never to have happened in the past?

I am not saying the happening of the event is lost. The idea is lost.

[Mohan.C]

---Yes, no, both and neither. It all depends on how you perceive it.

(Depends on how we perceive)
Exactly, every idea is unique for every person, even if the event is the same. And every idea is lost with the the same person if that is not passed on to a different person or not recorded in any kind of recording....

Sorry for the delay. My semester exams are in progress. So I'll not be replying instantly....

[Mohan.C]

And I think to determine the uniqueness of perception and hence the uniqueness of ideas we can go back to the 3 laws of difference.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink --- No perception=no differences. Without any perception, there is absolutely no proof that there are any differences.

I need your definition of "proof". If "perception" is required for any "proof", then there is no proof for the geologic history of the Earth - especially the precambrian time-frame as well as back to the big-bang.

However, "time" represents a good measure for perception. Without the 2nd law, perception (a process) is impossible. Thus, by your definition, the 2nd law must exist in order to prove anything.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---You can ignore/not answer the following, if multilinear discussion is confusing to you, as you have already seemed to point out. ...

Multilinear discussions are not confusing. Once you state "multi-" anything, you accept at least two things and you accept that there is a difference between those two, and you accept the 1st law of difference - that "one" is not the "other" and vice versa.

Further, once you accept the concept of "discussion", which implies two (1st law), you accept a process which falls under the 2nd law which says that differences are dynamic.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---My bringing up of M-theory was to show only that there was more hypothesized, than the 6 that you mentioned. ...

M-theory requires the 1st and 2nd law of differences to exist. Without these 2 laws, M-theory cannot exist.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---And it was believed that, ‘if man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings.” ...

To declare "life" within 1 dimension requires some definitions on your part. First, life is considered a subset of the universe of all things (1st law of difference), and you need to define it against non-life. In defining any pattern, you require at least 1 dimension (a line). Second, life is considered a process (2nd law of difference). If a change occurs with a 1-dimensional entity, then it requires the factor of time - the commonly held 4th dimension. Thus, for any definition of life, it appears to require at least 2 dimensions: length and time. And life must be declared through the shortening and lengthening of the line. (If you declare the living line to behave in waves, then you require a plane which is 2-dimensional in and of itself, and adding time creates a 3 dimensional requirement to describe life.

I am open to your interpretation of how life can exist in 1 dimension, but your "living line" must survive my test above.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Individuals learn as time passes from the future through the present to the past that; what was impossible, might be possible, is possible and has been proven possible. Within an infinite reality, what makes you so sure there are limits? ...

In your discussion of past, present, and future, you rely upon the 2nd law of difference or time - differences are dynamic. Without time, there is no past, present, and future. Also, "limits" exist with every word you use. "Possible" and "proven" have different meanings. In set theory, the two overlap, but an overlap is not identical. For instance, it is possible the Sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, it is extremely likely. However, our scientists may not know everything about stars, and the Sun may turn into a nova overnight. But that scenario, though "possible", is not yet "proven".

If the universe becomes a featureless void in the future, it will be limited by this time when features exist. Without limits, there are no features. Only limits can provide the definition needed for features, existence, and life.

I am sure there are limits because they are ubiquitous - the words of our language, the furnishings of our homes and work places, creatures and objects of our planet, and the many other phenomena around us. To declare that there are "no limits" is to validate the 1st law of differences. You use a derivative of "not". You also negate "limit". Thus, you acknowledge the existence of the concept of "limit" in order to negate it.

You seem to be bothered by the existence of "limits". What is troubling about them?

Originally Posted by futrethink ---And yes, I know that there is no proof that reality is infinite, it is only a hypothesis. The information/facts/generalities, that I know of, have yet to be proven wrong and won't be, because the contradicting evidence is nonexistent/ence. ...

I agree that there is no proof that reality is infinite. Nor is there proof that it is not. Presently, there is no proof either way.

Frankly, I can build a compelling case that "reality" doesn't even exist except in our minds. The Drifters and Melanies of this world may yet have the last laugh. And I hope they do, because they are offering us eternal life.

(My reply to all of your points is too long, and the ToE editor aborted when I tried to submit it. So, this is the first of two replies. I'll sneak in a reply to Mohan C. before my second reply to you.)

JAK

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Actually that is exactly what I said, it is not lost as long as it is remembered.....

I agree.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I am not saying the happening of the event is lost. The idea is lost.

Perhaps. Those who believe in the "akashic record" or the "recording angel" might say that no idea is ever lost.

"A theosophical term referring to an universal filing system which records every occurring thought, word, and action. The records are impressed on a subtle substance called akasha (or Soniferous Ether). In Hindu mysticism this akasha is thought to be the primary principle of nature from which the other four natural principles, fire, air, earth, and water, are created. These five principles also represent the five senses of the human being." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

Since other hard, realist ToE members are recognizing an "aether" or "ether", this whole idea becomes intriguing.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C (Depends on how we perceive) Exactly, every idea is unique for every person, even if the event is the same. And every idea is lost with the the same person if that is not passed on to a different person or not recorded in any kind of recording.... Sorry for the delay. My semester exams are in progress. So I'll not be replying instantly....

I agree that "every idea is unique for every person, even if the event is the same." But the akashic recording mechanism brings in an interesting additional perspective.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C And I think to determine the uniqueness of perception and hence the uniqueness of ideas we can go back to the 3 laws of difference.

Absolutely!

- JAK

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---When you drive a car, that you have been driving for all your life, along the same route, with the same happenings occurring all the time, is the driving a conscious action or an intelligent action without intelligence and/or learned instinct? ...

Your mind and brain perform numerous activities simultaneously, and "consciousness" is just one of these activities. The evidence points to "consciousness" as being a brained creature's way of fabricating new behavior - essentially, reprogramming itself. As Freud noted, it is "rehearsal" work. This process is very slow and expensive in terms of brain resources involved, so as soon as a new "program" is created and used for a while (in other words, "debugged" or "beta tested"), it is then dropped into what we call "subconscious" processing which is faster and cheaper in terms of brain resources. ("Habit" is another common term for this.) I consider this the post-learning or "production" mode of behavior which is "optimized thinking".

Now, "intelligent action" needs clarification. The act of fabricating new behavior is a manifestation of intelligence. Dropping a new behavior out of consciousness, which is slow and expensive, into a faster and cheaper mechanism (subconscious/habit) is intelligent, but hardly learned. IMO, we were born with this ability which would be considered instinctual.

Finally, "learned instinct" seems to be contradictory. An instinct is something innate at birth and does not require learning.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---When an artist, a writer or an athlete is ‘being the art, a part of the pen or in the zone’ are they doing intelligent action or are they just, doing an intelligent action without intelligence/in the flow? You might want to check into research, into such things and get back to me about how such an oxymoron/paradox could be. This is not to mean that I need a link to the medical research.

Unfortunately, research is scanty along this line. However, I am a photographer, cartoonist, musician, and composer, so I have spent considerable time in the past thinking about your question. Once again, the key idea is "optimized thinking". Let me give you an example:

When I first learned to play the guitar, I visually looked at the frets and deliberately placed each finger before strumming a chord. This was very time-consuming and very conscious. However, the more I practiced, the less I had to "consciously" place each finger. It became more and more "automatic" (subconcious/habit).

In fact, it became so much separated from my conscious direction, that while performing an intricate composition by Doc Watson at an event, I realized that I was as much a spectator as everyone in the audience. I was amazed at how my fingers would quickly and deftly jump around on the frets while I played the melody in my head.

And I am not alone in having intricate fingering attached to a melody played inside the mind of consciousness. My wife and I once watched a performance by a pianist, and we were in the front row of the audience and very close to the stage. From where we were sitting, we could hear the pianist hum the melody as he played it with both hands dancing all over the keyboard.

Further, often when I swap "riffs" and "breaks" with other musicians, when we attempt to show what we do slowly, we can't. Commonly, we say, "Let me play it up to speed". And as we do so, we literally watch what we do. In essence, we reload the fingering back into consciousness so that we can explain it to someone else.

Christof Koch talks about thisgeneral subject matter in his book, "Quest for Consciousness". He notes that "thinking" about an intricate and well-rehearsed "subconscious" process, while in the act of performing it, actually interferes with the behavior.

Hope this helps!

-JAK